Occasional Papers on Religion in Eastern Europe Volume 24 Issue 2 Article 5 4-2004 Aagaard & Bouteneff's "Beyond the East-West Divide: The World Council of Churches and the Orthodox Problem" - Book Review Paul L. Gavrilyuk Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.georgefox.edu/ree Part of the Christianity Commons, and the Eastern European Studies Commons Recommended Citation Gavrilyuk, Paul L. (2004) "Aagaard & Bouteneff's "Beyond the East-West Divide: The World Council of Churches and the Orthodox Problem" - Book Review," Occasional Papers on Religion in Eastern Europe: Vol. 24 : Iss. 2 , Article 5. Available at: https://digitalcommons.georgefox.edu/ree/vol24/iss2/5 This Article, Exploration, or Report is brought to you for free and open access by Digital Commons @ George Fox University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Occasional Papers on Religion in Eastern Europe by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ George Fox University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. away from their traditional approach to politics and towards a more grass roots approach to the church’s role in society. The old top-down way of getting things done is yielding to the workings of the empowered laity who are finding their own voice. One may assert that this dynamic is evidence not only of democratic enthusiasm, but of the gradual embodiment of the Second Vatican Council’s vision of the Church as the whole People of God that acts in accordance with the principles of collegiality and subsidiarity as well. The above minor critical observations notwithstanding, readers come away from this work thoroughly instructed on how the structure of the Catholic Church is a central determinant of the church’s participation in postcommunist East Central Europe. Joseph Loya, OSA, PhD, Villanova University Anna Marie Aagaard and Peter Bouteneff, Beyond the East-West Divide: The World Council of Churches and “the Orthodox Problem.” Geneva: WCC Publications, 2001. - Reviewed by Paul L. Gavrilyuk. In 1920 the Ecumenical Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Constantinople issued an encyclical “Unto the Churches of Christ Everywhere.” This landmark document, which urged cooperation between the Eastern Orthodox and other Christian communions, became one of the first building blocks of the Ecumenical Movement of the twentieth century. The encyclical was prompted partly by the tragic consequences of the First World War and by the establishment of the League of Nations. It was proposed that various Christian denominations form a similar league with the possibilities of collaboration in education, charitable work and in other areas. After a period of initial formation, the World Council of Churches (WCC) emerged as a fusion of the three already existing ecumenical streams: Missionary, Life and Work, and Faith and Order movements. Most Orthodox Churches became members of the WCC since its first Assembly held in Amsterdam in 1948. From the beginning, the Roman Catholic Church refrained from becoming a full voting member of WCC, while maintaining involvement in several important commissions, including Faith and Order, as well as participating as a full member in some National councils. At present, the WCC is comprised of 337 member churches with the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox being represented by 23 members. As Anna Marie Aagaard and Peter Bouteneff point out in the introduction to Beyond the East-West Divide, since Protestant membership steadily increases this situation guaranties more and more pronounced “minority status” to the Orthodox churches within the Protestant-dominated WCC (p. 5). While the clouds in relationships between the Protestant and Orthodox constituents of WCC have been gathering for a long time, the first clear sign of a storm appeared in 1997, when the Georgian Orthodox Church decided to withdraw its membership from the Council. This decision was made under pressure from the five influential monasteries in Georgia, which threatened to separate RELIGION IN EASTERN EUROPE XXIV, 2 (April 2004) page 36. from their Patriarchate. This move led to bloody revolts and public accusations of Patriarch Elia II of the ‘heresy of ecumenism’ by the monks. As long as the Orthodox clergy and faithful continue to be misinformed regarding the nature and purposes of the ecumenical movement,1 most attempts to bring about the unity between Orthodox and non-Orthodox will lead to internal divisions among the Orthodox. The decision of the Georgian Church prompted other Orthodox Churches to give more concentrated attention to the issue whether the Orthodox position was properly represented by the WCC. To address this situation, fifteen Eastern Orthodox Churches held a crisis meeting in Thessaloniki, Greece, in May 1998. The overall support for ecumenism affirmed at the meeting evidently did not stop the Bulgarian Orthodox Church from following the Georgian Church and abruptly discontinuing its membership in the Council in December of the same year. To forestall the snowballing of “the Orthodox problem,” a Special Commission on Orthodox Participation in the WCC was formed shortly after the Bulgarian Church had left the Council. Beyond the East-West Divide (2001) was written by two members of the Special Commission, as a prelude to its final report, issued in September 2002, and available at http://www2.wcc- coe.org/ccdocuments.nsf/index/gen-5-en.html. The final report was well received by the Orthodox churches and even prompted a recent appeal to the Bulgarian and Georgian churches to reconsider their status in the WCC. Peter Bouteneff is an Orthodox theologian who teaches at St Vladimir’s Orthodox Theological Seminary in New York. Anna Marie Aagaard, who teaches theology at the University of Aarhus, Denmark, and who from 1991 to 1998 was one of the presidents of WCC, represents the position of the Protestant members of the Special Commission. In the jointly written introduction the authors point out four areas of concern for the Special Commission: (1) the organization of the WCC; (2) the style and ethos of the WCC; (3) theological convergences and differences between Orthodox and non-Orthodox; (4) existing models and new proposals for a new structural framework of the WCC (pp. 8-9). Bouteneff’s essay, which follows in the first chapter, addresses what he rightly considers to be the apple of discord: the incompatibility between Orthodox ecclesiology and the vision of the Church tacitly accepted by the WCC. In her rejoinder Aagard articulates a ground plan of common worship and highlights what the Orthodox side needs to do in order to embrace this vision. Bouteneff begins his discussion of ecclesiology by asking a number of open-ended questions about the nature of the Church. He reduces all main ecclesiological visions to two principal starting points. According to the first point, the Church consists of all Christian denominations taken together as a whole (p. 18). Bouteneff calls this view “denominationalist” and argues, in our judgment correctly, 1 The author of the present lines was unpleasantly surprised by the amount of anti-ecumenical pamphlets circulating and widely available in Russia and other post-Soviet countries. Despite its very low quality, this material is very popular among ordinary believers. Many church affiliated religious educational institutions do precious little to combat and even openly encourage anti-ecumenical propaganda. RELIGION IN EASTERN EUROPE XXIV, 2 (April 2004) page 37. that this view is implicitly embraced by the Protestant members of the WCC. The second view accords to the Orthodox Church a privileged status of the Church from which all other Christian denominations are separated in various degrees (p. 18). The author subsequently provides a sketch of an Orthodox ecclesiology, based upon the creedal affirmation that the Church is “one, holy, catholic, and apostolic.” Bouteneff points out that these characteristics are both a divine gift, which has already been embraced and lived out by the Orthodox Church in history, and a calling that can be fully realized only in the eschaton. The author admits that individual members, as well as groups within the Church, have committed grievous sins throughout history. At the same time, he affirms the creedal holiness of the Church, as the body of Christ. Bouteneff refuses to introduce sharp dichotomies of invisible and visible, heavenly and earthly, militant and triumphant sides of the Church, in order to dissolve the tension involved in saying that one and the same Church is both holy and consists of sinful members (25-6). Bouteneff proposes that when individual members of the Church come together, by the power of the Holy Spirit, they become sinless as being parts of the sinless body of Christ. It is hard to see what is gained by this rather questionable identification of the Church’s holiness with her sinlessness. Clearly, personal holiness is not at all the same as absence of personal sins. Only in bad pieces of hagiography do we find saints converted into impeccable superhuman heroes. Correspondingly grand claims about the sinlessness of the Church make for bad ecclesiology and lead to a climate in which a loving criticism of one’s church becomes impossible. It would be inaccurate to extend the metaphor of the sinless body of Christ to the Church. Christ’s unique and unrepeatable sinlessness is precisely where the metaphor breaks down. Discussing the issue of the unity of the Church, the author maintains that the schisms do not penetrate to the unified essence of the Church (35). If the unity of the Church is to be treated as concrete and historical, it would appear that this unity did break down, at least in the event of the Great Schism between the East and the West in 1054. The fundamental presupposition of the ecumenical dialog is that the visible unity among Christian churches is lost and needs to be recovered. The statement that the unity of the Church cannot be lost at all is, therefore, unlikely to become a fruitful starting point of such a dialog.